Historical synopses of special education litigation in the USA often reflect traditional perspectives. Because these traditional perspectives are commonly referenced by legislators and judges when new legislation is crafted and judicial decisions are handed down, a reliance on these traditional historical synopses may perpetuate a status quo--which may or may not advance the interests of students with disabilities. We argue that some special education legal cases are decided upon and written from traditional perspectives. This allegiance to traditional perspectives may lead to intentional or unintentional discrimination against children with disabilities. This paper examines the seminal special education case, "Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley," to determine the extent to which those traditional perspectives continue to infiltrate all special education cases 25 years later. (Contains 81 footnotes.)